Tea party members insist that the movement abhors intolerance and bigotry.Here is the founder speaking tolerantly about a solid American who supports our country and is one of two Muslims in Congress.
Every single statement shows bigotry and are mostly factually false.

The controversy began when Phillips wrote the following message to supporters (it's unedited and contains several mistakes, including the claim that Ellison is the only Muslim in Congress; Rep. Andre Carson of Illinois is also Muslim)
"Ellison is one of the most radical members of congress. He has a ZERO rating from the American Conservative Union. He is the only Muslim member of congress. He supports the Counsel for American Islamic Relations, HAMAS and has helped congress send millions of tax dollars to terrorists in Gaza."
He is now doing the Pain thing where he denies statements that were recorded because he knows his people don't let a little recorded proof get in the way.

Chucks my bff
Charles Krauthammer wrote a provocative column entitled “The last refuge of a liberal”. The essence of his argument is that the liberal-left respond to critics of their views and policies by labeling them bigots and little people. According to Krauthammer: “promiscuous charges of bigotry are exactly how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking”. The “incorrect thinking” is anything that differs from their views.

Now let’s be honest and admit that we are all bigots, some to a lesser degree than others. Unfortunately this is the legacy of tribalism over the millenia, whether the tribalism is based on religion, language, culture, nationality or even socio-economic status. There has been some progress in some parts of the world in reducing the degree and impact of bigotry, but it persists.

The liberal-left happen to be among the worst bigots because they do not recognize that they are. Their bigotry is based primarily on elitism. They believe they are smarter than everyone who are not part of their select circle. Thus, they believe that they know what is best for everyone, especially the outsiders, and so they believe that they should be entitled to rule in order to implement their ideas. They are paternalistic as a result, but very thin-skinned paternalists.

They have almost no tolerance for critics. They call their critics small-minded, little people, bitter people, fools, and lastly, bigots. The Sarah Pallins of the world and the members of the Tea Party are looked down upon as idiots and unworthy of any consideration.

What the left fail to realize, or do not want to admit, is that their ideas are accepted by a majority of the people only in countries where most people are poor. In such countries, and Venezuela is a good example, the poor can be easily be bought by the government, which destroys the wealth of the country and drives out the enterprising middle and upper income citizens in the blind pursuit of retaining power.

Wherever there is a large, thriving and growing middle class, there has been serious resistance to the ideas of the left.

Krauthammer concluded his column as follows: “The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama overread his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.”

If the Democrats and the real liberals among them are to stage a comeback and try to become the majority party in the US, they will need to do the following.

They will have to recognize that no one has all the answers.

They will have to pay attention to the majority of voters who have different views and try to understand the reasons for this. They will have to accept the real possibility that their opponents, the great unwashed, may be right and have some important contributions to make to policy debates.

They will have to start speaking to people beyond their comfortable ghettos. There are people and views beyond Georgetown, Alexandria and Manhattan.

They will have to do a much better job spelling out their vision and how their ideas might better help the country and the people. But at all times they will have to be open-minded and be prepared to change. Condescension and name-calling are not substitutes for leadership and compromise

October 14, 2010
A scholarly study of tea party signs shows little racial animus
Rick Moran
Who are you going to believe when it comes to the lack of racist signs at tea party rallies? The liberal media or someone who scoured "the crowd, row by row and hour by hour, and taking a picture of every sign she passed...?"

A UCLA grad student did an in depth study at last month's tea party rally on 9/12 and cataloged each individual sign. She found that only 5% mentioned the president's race or religion and only 1% questioned his birthplace. Most of the signs reflected what tea partiers have been saying all along they were about; limited government and opposition to Obama's spending schemes:

Ekins's conclusion is not that the racially charged messages are unimportant but that media coverage of tea party rallies over the past year have focused so heavily on the more controversial signs that it has contributed to the perception that such content dominates the tea party movement more than it actually does.
"Really this is an issue of salience," Ekins said. "Just because a couple of percentage points of signs have those messages doesn't mean the other people don't share those views, but it doesn't mean they do, either. But when 25 percent of the coverage is devoted to those signs, it suggests that this is the issue that 25 percent of people think is so important that they're going to put it on a sign, when it's actually only a couple of people."

Ekins spent the summer researching the tea party movement and also as an intern at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. The survey was for her UCLA graduate studies.

The manipulation of images in this case was startling. One would think watching the coverage that the majority of tea partiers were expressing race hatred at Obama in the way the media dwelt on the most problematic signs. This turns out not to be the case which begs the question; will we see any retractions or corrections from those who were pushing this meme

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum